Coverage

October 07, 2010

Heard some bittersweet news from Dallas just while ago: Mike Lee, the Star-Telegram’s excellent city hall reporter, is leaving soon to join Bloomberg’s Dallas bureau staff to cover the natural gas industry.

For the S-T, that’s a hard loss of deep, credible institutional knowledge and talent, but it’s a great career move for Mike. It speaks volumes about his talent and why he’s held in such high regard at the paper, at city hall and among readers. Mike’s potent work ethic and deep familiarity with Barnett Shale-related matters will fit well with Bloomberg’s stratospheric level of competitiveness, competence and expectations.

There’s no source for business news that bests Bloomberg, in my opinion. They've been around since 1981, but If you’re not familiar with them, take a look at their website and their about page.

I congratulate Mike and Bloomberg. I wish Mike happiness, prosperity and fulfillment on his new path. I’m sure Mike’s going to be just fine with not having to pull obit duty, a rotating S-T assignment among the short-staffed city desk’s team.

Who will fill Mike’s shoes at city hall? That's a demanding beat that needs to be covered by a passionate, persistent and savvy reporter.

There are excellent backups in Anna Tinsley and Aman Batheja, one of the sharpest and most unflappable political writers around. Perhaps one of them will shoulder the city hall beat temporarily if not permanently. Whoever it is, we wish them the best. I have no doubt that Mike’s boss at the S-T, veteran assistant managing editor John Gravois, will find a capable replacement. Lord knows there’s plenty of hungry talent out there in the debris left by newsroom cuts across the country over the past two years.

Here's something I'm sure is weighing on newsroom managers' minds: Whenever a newsroom loses someone of Mike’s stature, a dreaded domino effect can follow as other staffers are inspired to bail out for opportunities elsewhere.

All newsrooms are vulnerable to that even in these tough times. I certainly had to contend with the domino effect back in my newsroom management days. But I’d guess the S-T’s particularly vulnerable in light of increased duties staff must juggle and disquieting daily uncertainty over when another staff cut may occur. At the same time, current tight conditions in the newspaper job market may blunt the domino effect. Time will tell.

This much is for sure: Bloomberg’s getting one heck of a reporter. The Star-Telegram will find a strong one, too. With the City of Fort Worth struggling with so much -– from a budget-busting pension plan to a retiring city manager, mind-boggling infrastructure challenges, and a fed-up citizenry/electorate expecting solutions –- the Star-Telegram must pump all the strength it can into the city hall beat.

September 26, 2010

Wouldn’t you know Bud Kennedy would lead a Sunday fruit page? I’m sure his many enemies enjoyed that. And his many fans (including me and my wife), who probably chuckled when they saw parallels between the ads and Bud’s topic. But I digress. And I apologize for not being able to stitch together the fruit page, but at least you get the idea.

Satr I was scrubbing skillets early this morning (had to make the 9 a.m. mass) from Saturday night’s chalupa fest when my wife, who was leafing through the paper on the breakfast counter, said: “Have you seen this?”

She held up Sunday’s gawd-awful Page 2B. “When I first started reading this page,” she said, “I kept thinking, ‘How does this art go with these stories?’ ” News readers think in such shocking ways. Then it dawned on her: This page had been savaged by invasive advertising – the kind that says: To hell with news columns. We want you, reader, to focus on these oranges, limes and that apple wth a stem in your eye. I know the eye-movement studies. You can bet that apple stem stopped more than a few readers’ eye movement as did the limes and oranges. Suggested to me that space on a page is too valuable to waste on a smart-ass columnist, another murder story and yet another environment story related to “clean-coal” power plant issues. Right? Is any of that new and compelling in its effort to open windows on life? Yawner news? Wouldn’t think so, but I’d be interested to know how readership was affected by citrus fruit rolling into Bud’s space, an apple poking into the murder story and a huge orange muscling its way into the environment story.

We’ve become accustomed to seeing ads like this that cut into news’ space. Bully for you, bully ads.

Time was when you stayed on your side of the page, and news stayed on its side. Not anymore. News (the revenue-reduction department, as I’ve heard news content ridiculed by the bean-counters) gives it up quickly for advertising. And we know why advertising can kick news’ butt these days. The for-profit model rules. Papers are struggling to find revenue wherever and however they can find it. What’s left of the news staff doesn’t care anymore, I’d guess. Let ads invade news columns. Who cares? Staff’s more likely to have a job tomorrow. Credibility may take a kidney punch, but the place is open for business tomorrow. I understand all that.

So why am I so bothered by those invasive ads? Yes, I know that 50% of readers pick up a paper for its news content and 50% of readers pick up a paper for its ad content. That’s an old but persistent and true statistic. Question is, which side is going to take it in the bum when the revenue going gets tough? And, is that even a worthwhile question to raise?

Serious readers are going to read 2B’s thought-provoking Kennedy column and those two stories even if an apple stem’s poking them in the eye. But I’d guess that less-serious readers will get mesmerized by the fruit. “Damn, Dawnie baby. Look at how this fruit kinda jumps off the page at ya. Ain't that fun?”

God bless them for subscribing or buying a single copy instead of just going online for free, but they’ll pay less attention to the news content in a space dominated by nvasive advertising. What’s so bad about that?

Readers may not learn anything. They may not form ideas and opinions based on the news content. They will be less informed, less American. They have this Florida (California?)Orange from Mars at which to gaze and contemplate. I suppose oranges and other fruits aren’t a bad thing to think about and to give thanks for, assuming they aren’t genetically engineered fruit (or, what if they are? Anyone asking?), but perhaps it would be better for less-serious readers in this environment-challenged DFW with its toxic air to be mulling environment challenges instead of the glories of oranges, limes and apples. But if one’s fixated on fruit, to heck with juicy hard news.

Another issue for me is the compromised time readers will spend with a page. It isn’t much. It’s literally seconds. Probably less than half a minute or maybe 15 seconds with Page 2B. The more time many readers spend gawking at invasive advertising because it’s so compelling visually (and we are visual creatures and can’t help that), the less time they’ll spend with news content and whatever provocative information it could impart.

Enough already. I want to see news that respects ad columns and ads that respect news columns. That’s not happening on today’s 2B. And that’s not good. Revenue can pay diminishing returns. Invasive ads send a bad signal and a troubling perception -– the S-T’s not a serious news product, it’s just a cash cow for McClatchy.

I know the S-T news staff, and I know they’re professionals, from the executive editor on down, and they reflect the respectable motivations that journalists bring to the table. But those commendable qualities are lost on much of the public these days as the anti-media forces whack and chop at the media’s credibility every chance they get. And what’s so sad is that a chunk of the public buys into what they hear. Pages like today’s 2B are no help in preserving journalism’s credibility. It’s just all about making money, right? Unfortunately, yes. But if that’s what it takes to keep excellent journalists working, then bring on papayas and mangos. And where are the bananas and bell peppers?

But I urge people who believe that the media’s only interested in profits to take a look at Pulitzer Prize-winning efforts for the past 20 or 30 years, take a look at how less-than-prize-winning coverage keeps public officials more sensitive to the need to clean up their act, take a look at how coverage inspires community forums to discuss local concerns. Case in point: debates over the City of Fort Worth’s pension issues. Journalists keep local affairs clear and honest. As much as they can.

Of course, for newspapers, all of that happens primarily on the printed page and, yes, to some degree in cyberspace nowadays (but there you have these cursed floating ads that temporarily obscure one’s ability to read the news). My point is that anything that cripples the Fourth Estate’s ability to connect with readers needs to be addressed with mucho cajones and shown the door or laughed down Seventh Street. Ain’t gonna happen, though, I fear. The prevailing idea, it seems, is to embrace money first and First Amendment stuff maybe will follow.

The for-profit model takes out journalists' kneecaps very proficiently.

But it bothers the hell out of me when I think that oranges, limes and apples are all it takes to inflict a crippling blow on credible sources of reliable news and information. At least we haven’t seen that sort of invasiveness yet on the sports pages and the editorial/op-ed pages where J.R. Labbe, Bob Ray Sanders, Linda Campbell and Mike Norman have been spared the fruit bullying.

Thank God. Those are some of the brightest lights in this city as are Celeste Williams, Randy Galloway, Gil Lebreton and colleagues. But that’s sort of easy to understand. Thinking people, the types who read editorial/op-ed content at least, and sports fans whose passions bulldoze ads’ attempts to stop their brawls, are not low-hanging fruit who can be distracted easily. They’re not worth ad dollars unless those ads can match the passions in whose presence they presume to plop and command attention. Could happen, but those readers set the bar high – way too high for advertising of Madmen’s ilk. And I love that. Show me an ad that can rivet attnetion on an op-ed or sports page, and I'll show you an ad that's damn genius stuff.

Make those ad/pr people work their butts off -- just like news staff does. Fight like hell over the space on news pages. Knock heads. You good enough to get in that fight? Yes? No?

Bottom line: Make ads work harder in their space. Don’t invade news columns. They need to be strong enough not to coattail on news' muscle. After all, news organization’s credibility gives ads their value. Yes? If you don't agree, you're not much of ad/pr person. If you do agree, you need to tell the S-T to quit selling its space on the (credibility) cheap.

September 21, 2010

Interesting play art on today's Your Life cover in the Star-Telegram: a photo illustration for the lead story, "Fall books preview." The art was a collage of photos of famous people whose books will be coming out soon.

Take a long look. Is there anything about the photo illustration that bothers you? Perhaps not. But I imagine that the paper's reader advocate phone line quickly filled with furious, outspoken conservatives provoked by an illustration that, in their view, deliberately slighted icons Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

Instead (I can hear them say, because in my ombuddy days I got so many calls like this) the illustration by the liberal media glorified "arch liberals" -- Jon Stewart, Steve Martin, Barack Obama, Barbra Streisand and some brunette who's probably just as bad as they are. And I can imagine the readers' accusations:

-- George Bush looks like a ghost. George should've been where Jon is.

-- I'm not letting my kids see this liberal-media propaganda.

-- I'm not letting my grandkids see this liberal-media propaganda.

-- I'm cancelling my subscription to the liberal media. I've had it with your liberal bias.

-- Rush Limbaugh's right. There's a "media crisis" in America.

-- This is a sad day in America.

There's no escaping political aspects of anything anymore, it seems. Not even authors. Perhaps there never has been.

In this area, the heaviest conservative market in Texas, the most provocative aspect of this photo illustration, I think, is not just the secondary place given to Reagan and Bush but the near-transparent treatment of Bush's photo. That's asking for trouble. I imagine trouble followed.

If you had been the editor in charge of pulling together this photo illustration, how would you have handled it? Would politicization issues have crossed your mind? If so, would that have made any difference in how you would have designed the piece? What other aspects would you have considered?

Given the demographic with which papers aim to connect (younger readers in general) and given Stewart's popularity among them, I may have kept Stewart as the dominant image for a boost in relevance.

But given the demographic of subscribers (older conservatives) and readers who expect fairness, I would've strengthened Bush's picture somehow to provide as much relevance as possible for them. I'm not sure I would've replaced that brunette, whoever she is, with Bush, because there are only two women in the collage and five men, and correctness dictates that some sense of equivalent prominence be given to the women.

Whatever. I'm sure those and Lord knows how many other issues got a thorough airing today on the reader advocate's phone. Did you think about calling? 817-390-7692

May 11, 2010

The race to get news online invites editing lapses that lead to publication of raw to near-raw copy that can carry embarrassing error perhaps not in facts but in the writing. I'd suspect that's what happened in the following sentence from an online report yesterday about the deadly tornadoes that hit the Oklahoma City area:

"It's unknown how many tornadoes actually touched down in Grant County this afternoon, but Wakita Police Chief Dean Bellin saw about five rotating clouds combine as baseball-size hail plummeted the area."

See the questionable word? I suspect the writer meant "pummeled" instead of "plummeted." Still, it's admirable to see hustle in getting news to the public, even if its credibility arrives slightly dented.

December 10, 2009

A number of readers and colleagues keep asking what I think about a recent move at The Dallas Morning News that has 11 news department segments reporting to advertising managers instead of newsside managers. Most of us learned about this from Robert Wilonsky’s Dallas Observerblog that reported the decision and carried the Dec. 2 memo that was sent to staff from DMN Editor Bob Mong and senior vice president of sales Cyndy Carr. Plenty of reaction followed on the Web. Google and see.

Mong, to his credit, didn't shy away from questions. And Publisher Jim Moroney was pulled into the discussion as well.

My knee-jerk reaction was alarm. News sections reporting to advertising? That smacked of perverse whoring at its worst until I looked further into what’s going on. Except for the organizational chart, which gags me, I don’t see much that’s new. And I don't like the thought of ad people possibly celebrating the long-desired taking of part of "the revenue-reduction department" as, over the years, I've heard ad- and business-side people refer to news departments that aggressively and effectively serve the public interest, which is what they're supposed to be doing.

Collaboration between soft news departments and advertising departments has gone on for decades, and there are policies that support it. For instance, when was the last time you saw news of an airliner disaster on a page carrying an airline ad? When was the last time you saw an expose on red-lining in the real estate section?

Collaboration shows up often in the development of special sections. But at metro dailies like The News and elsewhere, editors generally have developed news content according to news value and not because some business had bought a huge chunk of advertising in a section. In a situation like that, the ad buy tended to be based on the fact that a story was planned on a trend, a product category or the advertiser or whatever, and the story was planned because editors knew it had news value. The story had news value because of readers’ real or potential interest in the topic and need to know. Professionalism in the reporting and presentation of the story ensured a credible piece. A newsy section filled with content like that ensured a product with high news value, which in turn created high advertising value -- a strong vehicle in which to advertise. Sounds to me like that’s what The News is going after. They know as most of us do that credible news value is the single most vital ingredient in creating fertile territory for advertising in any for-profit news product. Advertising revenue floats the boat but doesn't power it. That's the news department's job.

The only criticism I have of The News' step is the new organization. I don’t like editors reporting to advertising. That creates the perception of advertising running newsside, and that’s a perception that can poison credibility, which The News understands and is an issue the Mong and Carr address in their memo.

Advertising exudes a potent presence. If handled in a tasteless manner, it can project a destructive presence, especially in the minds of that half of readership that subscribe or buy a paper principally for its news content. What would parishioners think if, say, they walked in to mass and hanging up there above the altar was a big Drink Pepsi sign instead of a crucifix? And maybe they’d noticed the holy water font sporting a decal for Ozark water. Obviously, Pepsi and Ozark would never pull such a perverse stunt, because they respect lines that separate sacred and secular. In a for-profit news product (and don’t get me started on that), which to me is still a sacred thing, advertising obviously has its place but it should respect where it is and act accordingly. When advertising muscles in on news space, that’s crossing and disrespecting a line and asking for trouble. Perhaps you’ve noticed as I have those god-awful pages in the Star-Telegram where ads chop into news space like bullies bellying up to a reader’s face. Disgusting and as repulsive as an egotistical airhead at a party who impolitely disrupts personal conversation. But it’s salary-paying revenue, right?

I could go on and on about all this as many of us could without even scratching the surface. There are many other aspects of The News' step that are worth exploring. For instance, the ad managers to whom newsside will report have been retitled as "general managers." Did they get a raise? Any raises given to newsside staff who'll be reporting to them? Whatever. Enough said.

To reiterate my concern about The News’ step, I don’t like editors reporting to ad managers. Why not the other way around to avoid threats to credibility? Mong says he and editors reserve the right to step in and to refuse to cross lines that would jeopardize credibility. That's good, but that’s weird. They’re going to say “No” to their bosses in the ad department? What does that say about perceptions of those ad-side people's news judgment and ethics? Why have them as bosses in the first place? But maybe those ad bosses will learn something about journalism. Maybe content that results will be infused with journalistic professionalism and high-quality news value. We can hope. At least hard-news departments like the city desk, state desk, etc., don’t appear to be part of the plan. As Mong and Carr’s memo says: “To better align with our clients' needs, we will be organized around eleven business and content segments with similar marketing and consumer profiles including: sports, health/education, entertainment, travel/luxury, automotive, real estate, communications, preprints/grocery, recruitment, retail/finance, and SMB/Interactive.”

There are some hard-news categories in that lineup, but they all have consumer dimensions as well that lend themselves to softer but still newsworthy coverage. We’ll see whether writers in soft departments generate the coverage or whether the hard-news gladiators get called up for duty.

August 11, 2009

Readers got a beautiful photo on this past Sunday's Star-Telegram's metro cover -- A Fort Worth Independent School District Native American student dancing at a powwow, which was held as part of the district's American Indian Education Program. I wish I could post the photo for you, but I don't have permission.

Where was the story????? As usual, a local Native American event deemed worthy of coverage was (1.) a powwow (2.) worth photographing because of the color and exotic nature (3.) but not a story. That was it for the news value -- a great photo with some cutlines but nothing in the paper about FWISD's American Indian Education Program. Hard to believe yet such typical treatment by the MSM.

Except for casino issues, Native American issues are pretty much ignored by the mainstream media. There just aren't enough Indians with enough economic and political clout to justify much media attention, one hears. Tsukanvsdina!"Bull!" in Cherokee.

At the least, consider how much taxpayer money is going into the program and what benefits, in any, are realized. But consider, too, that there are many more Native Americans than those who are certified as Indians by the federal government (American Indians are the only ethnic group in the U.S. forced to prove their ethnicity according to federal guidelines) and who carry the federal-issued Certificate of Degree of Indian Blood card, which creates "real" Indians.

There are millions more of us mixed-bloods descended from Indian ancestors who feared federal census initiatives such as the Dawes Roll and hid from them to avoid the "Indian" label. We who love our heritage and how it is treated by public institutions would welcome news reports that understand and respect those ties. Plus, stir those numbers into the count and the real Indian demographics throw newsworthiness into an entirely different, and brighter, light.

There should have been a story with that picture, dang it. The event was treated instead with stereotypical planning. At least staff writer Eva-Marie Ayala wrote a blog item in the paper's Extra Credit blog. If you don't want to click on that link, here's what she wrote:

"Fort Worth ISD hosts second annual powwow

"Saturday's free event was aimed at getting more students involved in the district's American Indian Education Program, which helps them connect to various educational benefits and other resources. Alice Barrientez, who oversees the program, has helped increase the number of students identified as Native American in the district from about 180 five years ago to 208 in the 2007-08 school year. Barrientez was named the American Indian Community Individual of the Year in 2008 for her work with the students by the American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Texas. This weekend's powwow was 1-9 p.m. and was to include dancing, arts, crafts, food and other activities at the Wilkerson-Greines Activity Center, 5201 C.A. Roberson Blvd."

The end. 30. Would you have liked to have known more? Would you like to know more about Native American issues? For that matter, what do you think of Fort Worth's treatment of Native Americans in its history, its public art and history?